> It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional.

It's a partisan assertion of a narrow political group, not generally accepted. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the assertion, but to say it's somehow a truth generally acknowledged is false.

That's a partisan phrasing, but I think there's an uncontroversial, generally accepted assertion there. Namely, starting with Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, the courts were willing to uphold nearly any federal program under the banner of "interstate commerce" until US. v. Lopez.

The idea that the constitution forbids Congress from delegating to the executive is not widely accepted. It is a novel interpretation from a Qanon-adjacent fringe group that wants to dismantle the government by making it too dysfunctional to work. It also creates a strange right for the judiciary to regulate how Congress and the executive choose to work together.

First off I'm not even talking about the delegation problem that's a whole other kettle of fish

That's said The arguments against Congressional delegation to the executive existed long before qanon and the arguments of limited congressional power date back to before 1789 so unless q anon existed in 1700's then you're just using a modern fringe group in a very poor attempt to sideline the conversation no different than calling everything that you disagree with racist or sexist or some other ism

For there still this idea that Congress and the executive should work together as a novel one and not one shared by the Constitution separately equal is critical to the functioning of our governance The key word there being separate.

The cozy relationship between the executive and Congress is a problem